Middle East

"The photos that lost Bush the war". That was how one US commentator
referred to the images of torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners by
US troops. Beamed across the globe, these appalling photos have provoked
international outrage.

Their impact has been likened to that of the massacre of innocent
Vietnamese villagers by US troops at My Lai during the Vietnam War - an
horrific incident that dramatically shifted public opinion against the
war.

Although not on exactly the same scale, the abuse perpetrated by US
troops at Abu Ghraib, Saddam Hussein’s notorious torture prison, cannot
be dismissed as the work of "rogue" individuals within the U.S. Army.
According to the Red Cross they "amount to a pattern and a broad system".

With the MoD investigating 33 abuse claims, including at least one
murder, British forces are also seriously implicated. Amnesty
International had detailed reports of abuse back in May last year,
months before the Daily Mirror first began publishing photos on their
front pages.

Both Bush and US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld have been forced into
humiliating public apologies, desperately trying to minimise the damage
to their credibility at home and internationally. But the damage has
already been done. Even before the release of the torture photos, hatred
of US imperialism had reached an unprecedented intensity in the Arab
world. In Baghdad, less than 10% of the population had a favourable
opinion of the US.

Calls for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq are growing ever louder.
One of Bush’s staunchest supporters, Australian prime minister John
Howard, is coming under increased pressure, with the opposition Labour
Party committed to ’doing a Spain’ if elected and withdrawing Australian
forces from Iraq.

In Britain, a majority of the population (55%) want the troops brought
home next month. Even a leading neo-conservative in the Bush
administration has called for US troops to be brought home more quickly.

Disastrous policies

Faultlines within the US administration are now ripping wide-open.
"Dysfunctional" is how the Financial Times referred to the
administration and its policy on Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, backed by Bush who said he was "superb", is insisting
that he will not be resigning. But by his own admission, even worse
images of torture and rape are still to come. Military figures who have
opposed his war strategy are queuing up calling for his head to roll.

If he were to stand down before the presidential elections in November
it would be an enormous blow to Bush. But, if as seems possible, the
furore continues, getting rid of Rumsfeld may seem the only way for Bush
to try and draw a line under the whole affair.

It’s no longer possible to talk about a US ’strategy’ in Iraq. "97%
disaster" was the verdict of one senior Pentagon official (Observer 9
May). This month, US troop numbers were supposed to be reduced ready for
the 30 June ’handover’. Instead, more are being sent and Bush is having
to go to Congress to ask for another $25 billion to finance the war -
something he vowed he would not do before the November elections. And
that is on top of the $160 billion already spent.

Having pledged to "pacify" Falluja, US troops were forced to withdraw
(although only after massacring at least 600 people). And now the policy
of de-Baathisation (purging the Iraqi armed forces of Saddam’s
supporters) has been reversed in Falluja with a former Republican Guard
heading a security force in the city.

At the same time, the so-called handover to Iraqi sovereignty is now
being seen for what it really is - a total charade. ’Security’, the
budget for reconstruction, control of prisoners, will all remain under
US control.

Withdraw the troops

Whichever way he turns, Bush, with Blair by his side, is in a no-win
situation. Maintaining the occupation comes at a cost - both financially
and in terms of the lives of coalition forces and Iraqis. It fuels
violence and unrest in Iraq and opposition internationally, including in
the US itself. But to withdraw against this background would inflict a
major blow to US imperialism’s global prestige.

The Socialist Party, along with our sister organisations in the
Committee for a Workers’ International (which are active in 36
countries, including the US) is campaigning for an end to the occupation
of Iraq and the immediate withdrawal of all coalition troops.

We support the struggle of Iraqi workers to organise and to unite across
ethnic groups and religions to oppose the occupation and to build a
socialist alternative to capitalism which, in whatever guise, cannot
offer a future to ordinary Iraqis or to working-class people anywhere in
the world.

Editorial from The Socialist, paper of the Socialist Party, cwi in
England and Wales